Is Roger Done?

[El Dude]

It will be interesting to see how well Roger comes back, whether he can return to his "late plateau" level of 2014-15. Half a year off could do wonders, or it could set him back so that he has a very hard time getting back into form.

All that said, I really don't understand how anyone couldn't be cheering for him.

 

[El Dude]

LOL, was that picture intentional, lob? I have no idea what that has to do with Roger or tennis for that matter.

Anyhow, I hear you but I think the mistake many Roger fans make is comparing 2010-present Roger with 2003-09 Roger. Two things are different, 2010-present. One, his older and no longer in his prime, and two, Rafa and Novak came in their own and surpassed him.

As I've argued before, Roger was the best player in the game from 2004 (or even late 2003) until mid-2008; then from mid-2008 to early 2010, Roger and Rafa were equals. But from mid-2010 on, Rafa or Novak has been the best in the sport, with Roger usually third best (rankings aside). Tis the way of things.

But to turn your view around a bit, we could also ask: which players from age 29 on have had as good careers as Roger has? I can think of only Agassi, Connors, and then Laver and Rosewall.

 

[lob]

LOL, was that picture intentional, lob? I have no idea what that has to do with Roger or tennis for that matter.

Anyhow, I hear you but I think the mistake many Roger fans make is comparing 2010-present Roger with 2003-09 Roger. Two things are different, 2010-present. One, his older and no longer in his prime, and two, Rafa and Novak came in their own and surpassed him.

As I've argued before, Roger was the best player in the game from 2004 (or even late 2003) until mid-2008; then from mid-2008 to early 2010, Roger and Rafa were equals. But from mid-2010 on, Rafa or Novak has been the best in the sport, with Roger usually third best (rankings aside). Tis the way of things.

But to turn your view around a bit, we could also ask: which players from age 29 on have had as good careers as Roger has? I can think of only Agassi, Connors, and then Laver and Rosewall.

No of course that picture was a demonstration of my deft typing skills on a smart phone.

Dude, of course only Agassi, Connors, Laver or Rosewall are the ones with comparable or greater longevity. BUT can you name a former world number one who has a 'runner up' streak of 3 Slam finals combined with 3 WTF finals, all on his top 3 surfaces (grass/indoors/fast-hard)?

Or look at it this way. Borg never lost an RG final. Sampras never lost a Wimbledon Final. Nadal never lost an RG final. Djokovic never lost an AO final. The latter two still might but it's not likely. Until last month Roger had never lost a Wimbledon SF and he found a way to.

 

[El Dude]

Borg is not a good comp because he retired at 25 years old. Sampras played his last Wimbledon final at 28 years old, Rafa his last (so far) at 28 years old, and Novak at 28 years old (so far). It isn't fair to compare those to Roger at 32, 33, and 34--the ages he was at the 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 Wimbledon, and 2015 US Open.

To put it another way, Borg, Sampras, Rafa, and Novak never--or have not yet--played at an age and level similar to Roger's the last few years.

That said, Roger's inability to seal the deal has been very frustrating. 2015's Wimbledon was particularly so, because he played a level during the SF vs. Andy Murray that was reminiscent of the player he was in 2012 and before. But then he got flustered vs. Novak and didn't play as well.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Borg is not a good comp because he retired at 25 years old. Sampras played his last Wimbledon final at 28 years old, Rafa his last (so far) at 28 years old, and Novak at 28 years old (so far). It isn't fair to compare those to Roger at 32, 33, and 34--the ages he was at the 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 Wimbledon, and 2015 US Open.

To put it another way, Borg, Sampras, Rafa, and Novak never--or have not yet--played at an age and level similar to Roger's the last few years.

That said, Roger's inability to seal the deal has been very frustrating. 2015's Wimbledon was particularly so, because he played a level during the SF vs. Andy Murray that was reminiscent of the player he was in 2012 and before. But then he got flustered vs. Novak and didn't play as well.

in regards to his recent results
maybe it's because Roger is facing some legendary players in the finals now instead of Philippoussis, Roddick, Bagdy, Gonzo, over matched Hewitt or an very aged Agassi

 

[El Dude]

Ah, Weak Era Theory rears its ugly head. It was only a matter of time.

 

[isabelle]

^ To put things in more perspective, Connors reached the USO semis at the age of 39 and he had nowhere near the game Federer has so there's no reason to believe if Roger recovers well that he can't stay around long enough, if not to win more slams, to annoy the top players by denying them more wins at slams and still occasionally make them look like 2nd rate amateurs on the faster courts like Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai.

Connors had no chronic lower back problem and no knee surgery and he played much less tourneys than today's players

Federer's is hardly chronic and here's the amount of matches played by Federer to date:

Career record 1080–245

And Connors' Career record 1256–279

Considering Connors won the most tournaments to date by any male player (109) it's clear your statement above is 100% incorrect. So far Connors played 210 more matches than Federer which is basically another 3 seasons worth so again your claim above couldn't be more wrong.

Mr Vavrinec was declared unfit to millitary service due to back problem...he was about 20...his back has always been an issue unlike Connors
moreover the American had no knee surgery as far I'm concerned and I don't remember a long injury pause in his career so I'm not wrong at all, at least concerning the health issue
Connors didn't play European's clay season before 82 or something like this...I guess the first time he showed up in RG was around 80/82 (not sure about the year) contrarly to Mr Vavrinec who's played clay season from the beginning of his career, maybe that's why his body is more damaged than Connors's one but wait till he's 39 to compare and judge, for the moment he's only 35 and nobody knows when he retire

 

[Front242]

Well my point was you can compare already. You said Connors played way less tournaments which is completely untrue and he's currently 210 matches ahead of Federer as I pointed out. Maybe Federer has it in mind to beat that longevity record of Connors but so far Connors played way more than Federer despite your claim. Federer is choosing to not play for 6 months to come back hopefully 100% next year but he is not unable to play right now. He doesn't feel right playing with movement restrictions so it's not like he's banged up beyond belief and the season is already more than half over anyway so it's not a long break by any means.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Ah, Weak Era Theory rears its ugly head. It was only a matter of time.

And you know dis, Man!

 

[the AntiPusher]

Well my point was you can compare already. You said Connors played way less tournaments which is completely untrue and he's currently 210 matches ahead of Federer as I pointed out. Maybe Federer has it in mind to beat that longevity record of Connors but so far Connors played way more than Federer despite your claim. Federer is choosing to not play for 6 months to come back hopefully 100% next year but he is not unable to play right now. He doesn't feel right playing with movement restrictions so it's not like he's banged up beyond belief and the season is already more than half over anyway so it's not a long break by any means.

Age is the only comparison Connors would have with Federer..Roger at this age is still far more dangerous because all the weapons he still possess. Jimmy was just a grinder but a spectacular shot maker

 

[lob]

in regards to his recent results
maybe it's because Roger is facing some legendary players in the finals now instead of Philippoussis, Roddick, Bagdy, Gonzo, over matched Hewitt or an very aged Agassi

This Federer didn't just win those matches. He completely outplayed, on occasion toying with, all the players you mentioned in every single match he played with them. I am not sure whether he was ever taken to a deciding set in a single match by any of them after 2003? Go watch those matches again.

And who did the current number 1 play in 3 of his last 5 slam victories? Yes, an aging Federer. Was that Federer ever taken to the 5th set by *anyone* in a slam? Did that Federer ever have a Wawrinka moment or a Nishikori moment or a Querrey moment? Heck, was he ever not waiting on the second Sunday? Yes, Nadal 2005 AO SF and 2005 WTF final are the only 'exceptions' anyone can think of.

There is a reason why Novak is now breaking some of Roger's many records but hasn't sniffed the 18 out if 19 F and the 23 SF streak.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk